Understanding the role of access in Hispanic cancer screening disparities.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic populations in the United States experience numerous barriers to care access. It is unclear how cancer screening disparities between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White individuals are explained by access to care, including having a usual source of care and health insurance coverage. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the 2019 National Health Interview Survey was conducted and included respondents who were sex- and age-eligible for cervical (n = 8316), breast (n = 6025), or colorectal cancer screening (n = 11,313). The proportion of ever screened and up to date for each screening type was compared.  Regression models evaluated whether controlling for reporting a usual source of care and type of health insurance (public, private, none) attenuated disparities between Hispanics and non-Hispanic White individuals. RESULTS: Hispanic individuals were less likely than non-Hispanic White individuals to be up to date with cervical cancer screening (71.6% vs. 74.6%) and colorectal cancer screening (52.9% vs. 70.3%), but up-to-date screening was similar for breast cancer (78.8% vs. 76.3%). Hispanic individuals (vs. non-Hispanic White) were less likely to have a usual source of care (77.9% vs. 86.0%) and more likely to be uninsured (23.6% vs. 7.1%). In regressions, insurance fully attenuated cervical cancer disparities. Controlling for both usual source of care and insurance type explained approximately half of the colorectal cancer screening disparities (adjusted risk difference: -8.3 [-11.2 to -4.8]). CONCLUSION: Addressing the high rate of uninsurance among Hispanic individuals could mitigate cancer screening disparities. Future research should build on the relative successes of breast cancer screening and investigate additional barriers for colorectal cancer screening. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study uses data from a national survey to compare cancer screening use those who identify as Hispanic with those who identify as non-Hispanic White. Those who identify as Hispanic are much less likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening than those who identify as non-Hispanic White, slightly less likely to be up to date on cervical cancer screening, and similarly likely to receive breast cancer screening. Improving insurance coverage is important for health equity, as is further exploring what drives higher use of breast cancer screening and lower use of colorectal cancer screening.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction: Does the Quality of Decisions Matter?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the quality of decisions influences patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized that higher decision quality for breast reconstruction would be independently associated with better PROs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without reconstruction. Patients were enrolled before surgery and followed for 18 months. We used BREAST-Q scales to measure PROs and linear regression models to explore the relationship between decision quality (based on knowledge and preference concordance) and PROs. Final models were adjusted for baseline BREAST-Q score, radiation, chemotherapy, and major complications. RESULTS: The cohort included 101 patients who completed baseline and 18-month surveys. Breast reconstruction was independently associated with higher satisfaction with breasts (ß = 20.2, p = 0.0002), psychosocial well-being (ß = 14.4, p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (ß = 15.7, p = 0.007), but not physical well-being. Patients who made a high-quality decision had similar PROs as patients who did not. Among patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, higher decision quality was associated with lower psychosocial well-being (ß = -14.2, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction was associated with better PROs in some but not all domains. Overall, making a high-quality decision was not associated with better PROs. However, patients who did not have reconstruction had a trend toward better well-being after making a high-quality decision, whereas patients who did have reconstruction had poorer well-being after making a high-quality decision. Additional research on the relationship between decision quality and PROs is needed.

Association of Receipt of Systemic Treatment for Melanoma With Insurance Type in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of hospital-based patients with metastatic melanoma suggest sociodemographic factors, including insurance type, may be associated with the receipt of systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether insurance type is associated with the receipt of systemic treatment among patients with melanoma in a broad cohort of patients in North Carolina. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between 2011 and 2017 of patients with stages III-IV melanoma using data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry linked to Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance claims across the state. The primary outcome was the receipt of any systemic treatment, and the secondary outcome was the receipt of immunotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 372 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average age was 68 years old (interquartile range: 56-76) and 61% were male. Within the cohort 48% had Medicare only, 29% had private insurance, 12% had both Medicare and Medicaid, and 11% had Medicaid only. A total of 186 (50%) patients received systemic treatment for melanoma, 125 (67%) of whom received immunotherapy. The use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, increased significantly over time. Having Medicaid-only insurance was independently associated with a 45% lower likelihood of receiving any systemic treatment [0.55 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.85)] and a 43% lower likelihood of receipt of immunotherapy [0.57 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.95)] compared with private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Stage III-IV melanoma patients with Medicaid-only insurance were less likely to receive systemic therapy or immunotherapy than patients with private insurance or Medicare insurance. This finding raises concerns about insurance-based disparities in treatment access.

Spatial Insights for Understanding Colorectal Cancer Screening in Disproportionately Affected Populations, Central Texas, 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce morbidity and mortality; however, important disparities exist in CRC uptake. Our study examines the associations of distance to care and frequency of using primary care and screening. METHODS: To examine the distribution of screening geographically and according to several demographic features, we used individual patient-level data, dated September 30, 2018, from a large urban safety-net health system in Central Texas. We used spatial cluster analysis and logistic regression adjusted for age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, and health insurance status. RESULTS: We obtained screening status data for 13,079 age-eligible patients from the health system's electronic medical records. Of those eligible, 55.1% were female, and 55.9% identified as Hispanic. Mean age was 58.1 years. Patients residing more than 20 miles from one of the system's primary care clinics was associated with lower screening rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.93). Patients with higher screening rates included those who had a greater number of primary care-related (nonspecialty) visits within 1 year (OR, 6.90; 95% CI, 6.04-7.88) and those who were part of the county-level medical assistance program (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84). Spatial analysis identified an area where the level of CRC screening was particularly low. CONCLUSION: Distance to primary care and use of primary care were associated with screening. Priorities in targeted interventions should include identifying and inviting patients with limited care engagements.

Screening for Melanoma in Men: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening skin examination has been proposed to reduce melanoma-related mortality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effectiveness of screening, in a demographic at high risk of melanoma mortality. DESIGN: A cohort Markov state-transition model was developed comparing systematic screening versus usual care (no systematic screening). In the base case, we evaluated a sensitivity and specificity of 20% and 85%, respectively, for usual care (incidental detection) and 50% sensitivity and 85% specificity from systematic screening. We examined a wide range of values in sensitivity analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Potential screening strategies applied to a hypothetical population of 10,000 white men from ages 50-75. MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, measured in cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). KEY RESULTS: Using base case assumptions, screening every 2 years beginning at age 60 reduced melanoma mortality by 20% with a cost-utility of $26,503 per QALY gained. Screening every 2 years beginning at age 50 reduced mortality by 30% with an incremental cost-utility of $67,970 per QALY. Results were sensitive to differences in accuracy of systematic screening versus usual care, and costs of screening, but were generally insensitive to costs of biopsy or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming moderate differences in accuracy with systematic screening versus usual care, screening for melanoma every 2 years starting at age 50 or 60 may be cost-effective in white men. Results are sensitive to degree of difference in sensitivity with screening compared to usual care. Better studies of the accuracy of systematic screening exams compared with usual care are required to determine whether a trial of screening should be undertaken.

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality, yet more than one third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened. Objective: To examine the effect of a digital health intervention, Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC), on rates of CRC screening. Design: Randomized clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02088333). Setting: 6 community-based primary care practices. Participants: 450 patients (223 in the mPATH-CRC group and 227 in usual care) scheduled for a primary care visit and due for routine CRC screening. Intervention: An iPad application that displays a CRC screening decision aid, lets patients order their own screening tests, and sends automated follow-up electronic messages to support patients. Measurements: The primary outcome was chart-verified completion of CRC screening within 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ability to state a screening preference, intention to receive screening, screening discussions, and orders for screening tests. All outcome assessors were blinded to randomization. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; 37% of participants had limited health literacy, and 53% had annual incomes less than $20 000. Screening was completed by 30% of mPATH-CRC participants and 15% of those receiving usual care (logistic regression odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.0]). Compared with usual care, more mPATH-CRC participants could state a screening preference, planned to be screened within 6 months, discussed screening with their provider, and had a screening test ordered. Half of mPATH-CRC participants (53%; 118 of 223) "self-ordered" a test via the program. Limitation: Participants were English speakers in a single health care system. Conclusion: A digital health intervention that allows patients to self-order tests can increase CRC screening. Future research should identify methods for implementing similar interventions in clinical care. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients. METHODS: We conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55-80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0-9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months. RESULTS: Among 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).

Use of Decision Models in the Development of Evidence-Based Clinical Preventive Services Recommendations: Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) develops evidence-based recommendations about preventive care based on comprehensive systematic reviews of the best available evidence. Decision models provide a complementary, quantitative approach to support the USPSTF as it deliberates about the evidence and develops recommendations for clinical and policy use. This article describes the rationale for using modeling, an approach to selecting topics for modeling, and how modeling may inform recommendations about clinical preventive services. Decision modeling is useful when clinical questions remain about how to target an empirically established clinical preventive service at the individual or program level or when complex determinations of magnitude of net benefit, overall or among important subpopulations, are required. Before deciding whether to use decision modeling, the USPSTF assesses whether the benefits and harms of the preventive service have been established empirically, assesses whether there are key issues about applicability or implementation that modeling could address, and then defines the decision problem and key questions to address through modeling. Decision analyses conducted for the USPSTF are expected to follow best practices for modeling. For chosen topics, the USPSTF assesses the strengths and limitations of the systematically reviewed evidence and the modeling analyses and integrates the results of each to make preventive service recommendations.

Folic Acid Supplementation for the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Neural tube defects are among the most common major congenital anomalies in the United States and may lead to a range of disabilities or death. Daily folic acid supplementation in the periconceptional period can prevent neural tube defects. However, most women do not receive the recommended daily intake of folate from diet alone. Objective: To update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age. Evidence Review: In 2009, the USPSTF reviewed the effectiveness of folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age for the prevention of neural tube defects in infants. The current review assessed new evidence on the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation. Findings: The USPSTF assessed the balance of the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age and determined that the net benefit is substantial. Evidence is adequate that the harms to the mother or infant from folic acid supplementation taken at the usual doses are no greater than small. Therefore, the USPSTF reaffirms its 2009 recommendation. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that all women who are planning or capable of pregnancy take a daily supplement containing 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400-800 µg) of folic acid. (A recommendation).

Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

IMPORTANCE: Based on data from the 1990s, estimated prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in the United States is 10% for mild OSA and 3.8% to 6.5% for moderate to severe OSA; current prevalence may be higher, given the increasing prevalence of obesity. Severe OSA is associated with increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular events, diabetes, cognitive impairment, decreased quality of life, and motor vehicle crashes. OBJECTIVE: To issue a new US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the accuracy, benefits, and potential harms of screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults seen in primary care, including those with unrecognized symptoms. The USPSTF also evaluated the evidence on the benefits and harms of treatment of OSA on intermediate and final health outcomes. FINDINGS: The USPSTF found insufficient evidence on screening for or treatment of OSA in asymptomatic adults or adults with unrecognized symptoms. Therefore, the USPSTF was unable to determine the magnitude of the benefits or harms of screening for OSA or whether there is a net benefit or harm to screening. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults. (I statement).

Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

IMPORTANCE: Basal and squamous cell carcinoma are the most common types of cancer in the United States and represent the vast majority of all cases of skin cancer; however, they rarely result in death or substantial morbidity, whereas melanoma skin cancer has notably higher mortality rates. In 2016, an estimated 76,400 US men and women will develop melanoma and 10,100 will die from the disease. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for skin cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening for skin cancer with a clinical visual skin examination in reducing skin cancer morbidity and mortality and death from any cause; its potential harms, including any harms resulting from associated diagnostic follow-up; its test characteristics when performed by a primary care clinician vs a dermatologist; and whether its use leads to earlier detection of skin cancer compared with usual care. FINDINGS: Evidence to assess the net benefit of screening for skin cancer with a clinical visual skin examination is limited. Direct evidence on the effectiveness of screening in reducing melanoma morbidity and mortality is limited to a single fair-quality ecologic study with important methodological limitations. Information on harms is similarly sparse. The potential for harm clearly exists, including a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, possibly resulting in cosmetic or, more rarely, functional adverse effects, and the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of visual skin examination by a clinician to screen for skin cancer in adults (I statement).

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134,000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49,000 will die from it. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 68 years. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics of these tests for detecting adenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas based on size, or both, as well as colorectal cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a comparative modeling study to provide information on optimal starting and stopping ages and screening intervals across the different available screening methods. FINDINGS: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk, asymptomatic adults aged 50 to 75 years is of substantial net benefit. Multiple screening strategies are available to choose from, with different levels of evidence to support their effectiveness, as well as unique advantages and limitations, although there are no empirical data to demonstrate that any of the reviewed strategies provide a greater net benefit. Screening for colorectal cancer is a substantially underused preventive health strategy in the United States. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation). The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient's overall health and prior screening history (C recommendation).

Screening for Syphilis Infection in Nonpregnant Adults and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

IMPORTANCE: In 2014, 19,999 cases of syphilis were reported in the United States. Left untreated, syphilis can progress to late-stage disease in about 15% of persons who are infected. Late-stage syphilis can lead to development of inflammatory lesions throughout the body, which can lead to cardiovascular or organ dysfunction. Syphilis infection also increases the risk for acquiring or transmitting HIV infection. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2004 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for syphilis infection in nonpregnant adults. Screening for syphilis in pregnant women was updated in a separate recommendation statement in 2009 (A recommendation). EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for syphilis infection in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and adolescents, including patients coinfected with other sexually transmitted infections (such as HIV). FINDINGS: The USPSTF found convincing evidence that screening for syphilis infection in asymptomatic, nonpregnant persons at increased risk for infection provides substantial benefit. Accurate screening tests are available to identify syphilis infection in populations at increased risk. Effective treatment with antibiotics can prevent progression to late-stage disease, with small associated harms, providing an overall substantial health benefit. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening for syphilis infection in persons who are at increased risk for infection. (A recommendation).

Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

IMPORTANCE: About 14% of US adults aged 40 to 79 years have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and it is the third leading cause of death in the United States. Persons with severe COPD are often unable to participate in normal physical activity due to deterioration of lung function. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for COPD in asymptomatic adults. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on whether screening for COPD in asymptomatic adults (those who do not recognize or report respiratory symptoms) improves health outcomes. The USPSTF reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools (including prescreening questionnaires and spirometry); whether screening for COPD improves the delivery and uptake of targeted preventive services, such as smoking cessation or relevant immunizations; and the possible harms of screening for and treatment of mild to moderate COPD. FINDINGS: Similar to 2008, the USPSTF did not find evidence that screening for COPD in asymptomatic persons improves health-related quality of life, morbidity, or mortality. The USPSTF determined that early detection of COPD, before the development of symptoms, does not alter the course of the disease or improve patient outcomes. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for COPD in asymptomatic persons has no net benefit. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends against screening for COPD in asymptomatic adults. (D recommendation).

Serologic Screening for Genital Herpes Infection: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Genital herpes is a prevalent sexually transmitted infection in the United States, occurring in almost 1 in 6 persons aged 14 to 49 years. Infection is caused by 2 subtypes of the herpes simplex virus (HSV), HSV-1 and HSV-2. Antiviral medications may provide symptomatic relief from outbreaks but do not cure HSV infection. Neonatal herpes infection, while uncommon, can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Objective: To update the 2005 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for genital herpes. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the accuracy, benefits, and harms of serologic screening for HSV-2 infection in asymptomatic persons, including those who are pregnant, as well as the effectiveness and harms of preventive medications and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce future symptomatic episodes and transmission to others. Findings: Based on the natural history of HSV infection, its epidemiology, and the available evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the USPSTF concluded that the harms outweigh the benefits of serologic screening for genital HSV infection in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including those who are pregnant. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against routine serologic screening for genital HSV infection in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including those who are pregnant. (D recommendation).

Statin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, accounting for 1 of every 3 deaths among adults. Objective: To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for lipid disorders in adults. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for and treatment of dyslipidemia in adults 21 years and older; the benefits and harms of statin use in reducing CVD events and mortality in adults without a history of CVD events; whether the benefits of statin use vary by subgroup, clinical characteristics, or dosage; and the benefits of various treatment strategies in adults 40 years and older without a history of CVD events. Conclusions and Recommendations: The USPSTF recommends initiating use of low- to moderate-dose statins in adults aged 40 to 75 years without a history of CVD who have 1 or more CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, or smoking) and a calculated 10-year CVD event risk of 10% or greater (B recommendation). The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer low- to moderate-dose statins to adults aged 40 to 75 years without a history of CVD who have 1 or more CVD risk factors and a calculated 10-year CVD event risk of 7.5% to 10% (C recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating statin use in adults 76 years and older (I statement).

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for visual acuity impairment associated with uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, and age-related macular degeneration among adults 65 years or older in the primary care setting; the benefits and harms of screening; the accuracy of screening; and the benefits and harms of treatment of early vision impairment due to uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, and age-related macular degeneration. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to asymptomatic adults 65 years or older who do not present to their primary care clinician with vision problems. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults. (I statement).

Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder in Young Children: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

DESCRIPTION: New US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in young children. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the accuracy, benefits, and potential harms of brief, formal screening instruments for ASD administered during routine primary care visits and the benefits and potential harms of early behavioral treatment for young children identified with ASD through screening. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to children aged 18 to 30 months who have not been diagnosed with ASD or developmental delay and for whom no concerns of ASD have been raised by parents, other caregivers, or health care professionals. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for ASD in young children for whom no concerns of ASD have been raised by their parents or a clinician. (I statement).